This edition of Nimby Watch, we’re visiting Henley-on-Thames in Oxfordshire, where there’s a row about extending a new-build estate, and also our essential democratic rights.
Where to? We’re in the charming historical town of Henley-on-Thames in south Oxfordshire. More specifically still, we’re on a new-build estate of some 191 homes, surrounded by green fields, on the edge of the town. It’s all quite nice, really.
This all sounds far too good to be true. Why are we looking at somewhere that homes have already been built? You haven’t forgotten the name of this column, have you? Alas, I have not. The 191 homes that were built in 2020 were, you see, just the first phase of a bigger planned development, and now Crest Nicholson – the developer concerned – has submitted its plans for phase two.
And the longtime locals are complaining about it? They might be, but that’s not the issue at hand here. The issue is that people who bought some of the 191 homes in phase one are complaining about the new development – or at least they’re trying to do that.
Trying to? Are they struggling with the paperwork or something? In a manner of speaking…yes. Residents who bought their homes on phase one of the site have been somewhat shocked to discover that their contracts include a clause banning them from objecting to future phases of the site’s development – which they say weren’t flagged to them by their solicitors, and which they feel is something of a violation of their essential rights.
Do they have a point here? It does seem a bit extreme for a contract regarding a home purchase to include clauses restricting the buyer’s democratic rights. Look, let’s come back to that later, because there’s something we really should talk about first.
And that is? The absolute, sheer, utter, unforgivable brass neck of trying to object to new housing when you’ve just moved into a newly-built home yourself. That would be bad in any circumstance, but when it’s part of the same planned development that you moved into, it’s even worse. It’s about as obvious a case of immediately kicking down the ladder behind yourself as there could possibly be.
Okay, let’s calm down a little. Breathe deeply. And again. Perhaps they have some really good grounds for objection? You’re baiting me, aren’t you? You know they don’t – or at least they’re not saying them (because you’re me, typing in a different font). But I could never make up a quote more outrageous in its sheer Nimbyism than this, from the Daily Mail.
‘We’ve relocated for work. We wouldn’t be able to buy in an area like Henley if there had not been a new housing estate,’ she told the paper. ‘But we personally love the countryside which we live in… and we don’t want any further development here.’
Okay, fine, that is pretty maddening. Does that mean you think the developer was acting within its rights to try to prevent new buyers objecting to planning proposals for the rest of the site? Well, this is where it gets a little tricky. There’s a practical issue at stake – what if the developer radically changed the plans in ways that were genuinely unreasonable? In this case, the developer had promised to build a community centre in phase two as part of getting the plans approved, and now it’s looking to change those.
Those bastard developers, always up to no good. Actually, there’s every chance it is acting reasonably in this case. It’s not trying to cancel the promised amenity, it’s trying to relocate it – and to add a few extra facilities, like a toilet block and extra car parking, to the centre and sports fields. Plus, while the new residents might reasonably want to object to these changes, that doesn’t make their desire to outright oppose more new homes any less outrageous.
Don’t get started on that again. Deep breaths, remember. Yes, because annoyingly I am going to have to cede one fundamental point to these Nimbys – it does not seem a reasonable clause in a house buying contract that it restricts your future rights to participate in democratic consultations, however outrageous it is for people in newly-built homes to object to further house building. The onus should be on the planning system and planners to recognise such objections as manifestly unreasonable, and to ignore them. Forcing buyers to accept gagging clauses is not the way forward.
So… you’re fighting for their right to speak, and to be ignored? That’s exactly what I’m fighting for, yes. To the barricades, comrade!
Click here to subscribe to our daily briefing – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.
